'God' is Impossible

Not open for further replies.


Valued Senior Member
God is Impossible

‘God’ is a supposedly fundamental Being who thought, planned, and created all else, including a special species of higher mammals on planet Earth. Whether He micromanages everything that goes on here and everywhere is not a concern, although that, too, can be shown not to be by looking everywhere.

1. First Being, or even any beings, or even molecules cannot be first and fundamental because they are compositional. No way around this.

Believers cannot use the notion of ‘God’ towards that very notion they wish to prove, and, besides, ‘magic’ is not acceptable either.

Systems cannot be first, period, for they must have constituents.

Believers will be unable to refute this, and will even neglect to try since they so much want what they want that they have become immune to reason, logic, and evidence.

They created the impossible God by extending cause and effect for substance and life into a higher system of Life of God most likely based on a higher family structure based on their own, but they not only forgot (neglected) that this notion would require even more LIFE behind the Life, stopping at just a word and being completely satisfied with the even larger dilemma that they couldn’t accept in the first place.

While that is psychology on the nature of belief, it explains the belief stance of faith for those who wonder about that aspect of the human condition, but it is mere academic exercise after the fact of God being impossible.

We ourselves and our constituents took 14 billion years to reach our present being and we are by no means comparable to the proposed Super Being Life Form who is even said to be of infinite magnitude. There is no Super Being possible as the first and creator of all because this Fellow cannot be elemental in the least.

This impossibility proof via self contradiction is the way to undo a universal negative and is presented since believers wrongly state ‘God’ as fact and truth, a grave deception, which is yet another topic not addressed here, but surely worthless at least and and unethical at best.

Believers could not have been any more wrong, for they looked for complexity in the complete wrong direction, even surpassing this initial error by supposing a fundamentalness for a system, and yet even going more and totally astray by having it to be ultimate and infinite in scope.
If God is impossible you have to assertain if God can be stated false, purely and absolutely. I haven't ever seen that proven...

Also, with respect to god, Who's to say any of his absolutes are false? The first absolute of his existence has never been disproven, although Salads, word salamies' and so on are continually comming in this topic.

The best I could say about any "word salad" is they sure smell great!
Sciwriter said:
‘God’ is a supposedly fundamental Being who thought, planned, and created all else

I think God could be something that is fundamental to 'being', but not capable of thought or planning, therefore also unable to create anything. That is, God has no capacity to do what we do because such a capacity isn't needed by God.

If this version of God exists, and not the rather vanilla OT ABrahamic version you've trotted out, then there is nothing to be created, and humans who can think and plan do the creating instead--including rationalisations of "what" God is.

Perhaps God can be contemplated, but not understood with rationalisations. You can experience ("my" version of) God directly in much the same way you hear sounds or see light, and sound or light can't think or plan, or create anything, right?

So, I'm saying God is like something passive, you actively seek this state of passivity, like listening to music or otherwise 'entertaining' your senses. It's also why people take LSD and other hallucinogens: entertainment. God is that which entertains human minds--we like to wonder about it, rather than know the boring details, right?
Find out why god cannot be thought of as impossible.

You then prove how he is ---- (x conclusion) wordings are so hard sometimes....

in conclusion:

my belief about how god is possible is:

"my belief about how god is possible" (which is an absolute and self justified belief)

this type of arguement is really counter intuitive to the whole thread, but i said this just because of you post.
Im surprised this thread has been allowed to stay open as it's an obvious Fallacy,
What happened to the "Tightly moderated" Philosophy sub-forum?

There is no evidence that god exists or does not exist, to say you have evidence of either is wrong.
Are you suggesting he does have proof that god cannot exist?.

Sciwriter started the thread and provided his reasoning.
That fulfils at least part of the criteria for being a valid philosophical thread.
You, on the other hand, have not provided ANY reasoning for your claim that it's an "obvious fallacy". Merely a statement that it is actually so.
There is no evidence that god exists or does not exist, to say you have evidence of either is wrong.

Are you suggesting he does have proof that god cannot exist?.

To be fair to SciWriter, he hasn't really started alot of threads, so hopefully he will learn not to make absolute claims in future.
But as this ''?proof?'' is his masterpiece, I would like him to fully explain it, in simple terms. Then we can see what he is trying to get at.

Not open for further replies.